Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 20, 2011 10:04:16 GMT -5
Dave and Mickey, thanks a lot !!! I refurbished the plateholders so far, that I could load the first sheets of film today and can run my first tests tomorrow. I can use my "Dunkelkammer" just at night, because I can't get my appartment light tight during the day. I use the bathroom and taped the window ... but still ... appartments in Tokyo are not that comfortable. We all need to improvise a lot here
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 20, 2011 9:26:29 GMT -5
That is very true ... unfortunately ... and we actually just talked about the camera aspect. There are many more things, which make the difference between a good and bad movie. Weird at least here in Japan is, that the position of a DP ( director of photography ) is missing. They have ADs ( assistant directors ) and ADs for the ADs, but a person in charge for the whole aspects of camera work and vizualisation does not exist. The director is often enough not a camera or lighting expert at all and the level of the camera crew is depending on the level and budget of the production. Most money to make meanwhile ... TV commercials ... and there, you can find the best of the best. Movies ? Well ... depends on the budget ... and TV ? No comment If an AD get's less than 100 dollar a day for mostly working 24 hours, what kind of people can we expect to find working there ? But that's really a wide topic and a lot of things to consider for discussing in properly. Just returning to the camera aspect, the fast advancing technology ( and availability for average consumers ) has good and bad sides, I think. Nice, that every "normal person" can have access to HD movie making or high quality photography ... but not good for the professionals ( in the meaning of people, who try to make a living from photo-/videography ) ... and not good for what we might call "art". People always get used to what they see and get ( in movies, on TV or by what they are using by themselves ). The difference between a professional equipment and a cellphone became so small, that people just say: "Why do I need to hire a photographer, if my pictures are also clear, sharp, colorful and well exposed ?" Or why should a TV production company pay more than 100 dollar a day if a camcorder can produce brilliant HD footage without any further skills ? And especially the young generation, used to their "iPhone-look" can't see a difference anyway. So, the profession of a cameraman or photographer is dying and with them the Kurusawas and Spielbergs of this world Only a very few major film companies can afford to produce ... mainstream movies of course or so called blockbusters. They need to present something different from TV or your home cam. Excessive CC like in Avatar or 3D. People are spoiled. If something looks just like on their own DSLR, why should they go to cinema then ? Just to see Tom Cruise instead or their aunt or daughter ? Tough times for "indies". Yes ... three years ago, we could still excite people with the typical ( and never seen on a camcorder before ) depth of field on a GH1 or 7D but now, Vimeo and Youtube is full of it ... and this feature is often just used for the sake of it. So what comes next ? The first short film shot on a cellphone ... does already exist ... or 3D ? I don't know ... but I personally have the longing for going back to the roots. Always when I watch old movies on film, I think, how wonderful they actually have been. The beautiful technicolor colors ... believe me, I would never touch Magic Bullet Looks again ... and the lighting ... simply everything. So ... as I already have the best digital equipment of today, what wish could remain ? A real motion picture camera ;D
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 20, 2011 4:06:24 GMT -5
Of course, Dave !!! Shooting movies has never been easier and more comfortable for amateur users than it is now. 8 mm ? I never took a movie on that and even cellphones can shoot movies in amazing HD quality now. However, like I said, for documentaries or nature stuff ( and that is, what the average person is filming ), digital is absolutely brilliant, comfortable and provides a much wider range of capabilities. There is no doubt about that and I would never expect somebody to take a movie of a birthday party or in his holiday by using a 35 mm motion picture camera The situation changes, when it comes to shooting something narrative or fictional, I think. There, it can actually be a pain, when the camera is capturing too many details. The make up, costumes, props ... all that looks suddenly "fake" and it takes a whole day to prepare a set in every detail for shooting just one scene ... because you can see everything later on your 50 inch TV at home. One reason, why green screen and computer graphics is used so often recently ... it's cheaper than preparing a huge set ( even just a room ) in every detail. I don't know realy why it is exactly so, but film is capable of capturing everything sharp, clear and in a high resolution ... but it is still more "forgiving" somehow. And that's what it is all about in fictional films. It is NOT about capturing the reality perfectly, it is about creating a new and different one. Of course, I tried to play with "Magic Bullet Looks" and all these stuff as well ... because I don't have a motion picture camera ... but it is not the same and I slowly start to dislike those cheap looking film look effects. I am not that familiar with US TV series, but my wife saw something like "CSI Miami" on TV recently. Sorry, but I had to laugh, looking at this "fake orange sky" Magic Bullet filter all the time ... and japanese TV productions are far worser than this one. I liked "Spartacus" though, but that's Pay TV and they do have a nice budget, I guess. Very smart to use a limited set too ( basically everything happens in this roman gladiator gym ) ... well, and the rest is CC.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 19, 2011 21:43:47 GMT -5
Because I like filming as well. Did ( and still do ) a lot of stuff on digital, but it's not the same For documentaries and filming nature, digital is wonderful but for narrative films, I like film. I don't want to use a lot of computer graphics anyway. I am working in the movie- and TV-industrie and it is horrible, how people work meanwhile Especially for TV, they just use HD camcorders ( at least here in Japan ) ... not even DSLRs. A depth of field from here to the moon and no effort in creating a decent lighting anymore. Yeah ... we can shoot at ISO 3200 now I could always cry, watching them wasting a huge budget and recording everything with a camcorder on tape. But if you look at the young generation of cameramen and directors here, they don't even know, what's an aperture or depth of field anymore. If you can barely hold the camera steady, you're the man Plus ... make up artists are having a hard time meanwhile as well. There is a famous Samurai TV series, continued for decades. The first seasons have been shot on film of course. Brilliant lighting, the evil characters half in the shadow and the make up looked pretty real. The last seasons do look just terrible. Make Up and costumes look like from a carnival party even they are basically the same. Well ... it's not a production like "Pirates of the carribean" of course ... but "creating illusions" on a smaller budget has been actually easier if using real film. If I look at the original STAR TREK series from the 60s ... how would the sets have looked, shot on a camcorder ... just ridiculous, I guess Film is an "eternal format" as well. So many TV productions shot on video in the past do look absolutely crappy on a big TV now, but you can still enjoy "Gone with the wind" in BluRay quality ... or maybe even on a 4K TV in the future if scanned properly. HD is basically nothing more than 3 MegaPixel while 35 mm film can be scanned at a ten times higher resolution. Just a few years ago, we had 640x480, which has the size of a stamp, displayed on a computer monitor of today. A lot of good reasons, putting a 35 mm motion picture camera on the "if money is no issue" list ... at least for me But even in general ... movie- and TV-productions are so expensive, that it doesn't make any sense for me, saving a few dollars on the camera and getting the film developed is probably less than one per mill of the budget.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 19, 2011 11:25:02 GMT -5
A 35 mm motion picture camera and few sweet primes for it
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 19, 2011 6:07:48 GMT -5
Fantastic, Mickey ... I can't wait for getting started !!!
What do you think, where I should start ? I mean, regarding the exposure times ? How sensitive is photo paper ? I found something written on the one I bought like: ISO speed P500 ISO range R110. Any idea, what that could mean ?
I thought, I might start at a certain exposure time and close the lens down ( using a new sheet of paper of course ). I have six plate holders ( for two sheets each ) ... so I can take 12 pics before heading the darkroom.
Does photo paper show the same characteristics as film ? For example, if I would get a good exposed picture at ... let's say two second ( daylight, ISO 100, 1/125 sec, f:8 for example ), would I need to expose my photo paper for four seconds if 1/60 is needed ? Do you know, what I mean ? Is it possible to find some "scale", where I can calculate the necessary exposure time on photo paper from the exposure measurements of a light meter ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 19, 2011 3:29:32 GMT -5
Got things sorted a little bit meanwhile. There have been so many things in this box and it took me a while to find out, what belongs to what. And I had a little bit time to take a few pictures ( at least of the small and medium camera, but the largest one looks actually the same - just bigger ). What I know now is, there are three cameras. The smallest one uses 12x16.5cm ( 4 3/4 x 6 1/2 inch ), the medium one, I don't know as there unfortunately do not exist any plateholders and the largest camera takes pictures on 25.5x30.5cm ( 10 x 12 inch ). At least I am very lucky, that there are enough wooden plateholders for the small and largest camera. All cameras do not have any shutter, but there are some devices in this treasure box, which look like shutter units but of very ancient design and it seems, that those are not working anymore ( or I don't know how to use them ). Will take pictures of them later as well. Haven't seen anything like that before Really nice, that I might be able to use photographic paper as well, because as I noticed today while trying to buy some, they do have the exact sizes, I need. So, I don't need to cut anything. So here come the pictures: First and second one shows the smallest camera from front and back: Unkown plate camera small front by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Unkown plate camera small backside by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr And here two pics of the medium sized camera: Unkown plate camera medium front by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Unkown plate camera medium backside by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr And here a picture of the tripod mount ... Unkown plate camera tripod mount by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr ... and a last picture of both cameras side by side: Unknown plate cameras small and medium by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr I didn't have time to clean them yet. So, they look like I took them right out of the box. BTW, any idea, what I kind of metal has been used ? Could it be chrome ? Want to buy a suitable cream for cleaning and polishing it a little bit. Any idea about the age of those monsters ? The old guy, who sold it to me, said something about "Meiji-jidai" ( in Japanese, the time is defined by the period of the governance of a certain emperor - until now ), which would be translated as something between 1868-1912
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 18, 2011 19:11:35 GMT -5
I think, I will never ever sell anything from my collection ... and my wife is not happy about that ... hahaha ...
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 18, 2011 8:36:34 GMT -5
BTW ... I just checked the plate holders of those three cameras more closely. It's neither 4x5 nor 5x7 nor 8x10 inch ... it's exactly 12x16,5 cm on the two smaller ones and 25,5x30,5 cm on the biggest. So "do it yourself" might be the best option anyway.
12x16,5 cm ... 25,5x30,5 cm ... weird sizes. Is it possible to guess the age of those cameras by this ? Couldn't find any brand name on it ... but maybe I should take and post some pictures too.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 18, 2011 6:19:21 GMT -5
Cool ... thank you. That sounds good Mmmh ... what does that mean ? Something like that ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 18, 2011 4:46:42 GMT -5
Last week, there has been one of the most lucky days in my "photographic life". I found three large format cameras at a flea market in the neighbourhood and bought them for "nobody can say NO" price At least 80 years old if not older, a wonderful Zeiss Tessar 21 cm F:4.5 included ... litterarely a huge treasure box, most likely the whole equipment of a photographer long time ago ... and everything in excellent condition. I have zero experience with large format photography because I never thought, that I would be able to afford such an equipment in my life ... but of course, I want to try it now !!! 4x5 inch, 8x10 inch or even bigger should be possible and I start thinking now, what would be the easiest ( and cheapest ) way for experimenting a little bit with this equipment. Just checking the prices for film and development in town, I became a little bit shocked though So I thought ... and I don't know if that is just a silly idea or not ... I might use photo paper instead of film. It's cheaper ( especially B/W would be good enough for the beginning ) and easier to process at home. What I will get, is a "negative", but that wouldn't be that bad, because I could scan and reverse it easily. Would that work ? Or is it just a stupid idea ? What do you think ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 18, 2011 4:25:34 GMT -5
Amen
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 17, 2011 1:55:56 GMT -5
SiDW ... good point, I think.
I don't know, which technique is better regarding the technical issues, but I think ... if using a digital camera for B/W photography, I would also try to benefit from the option of "previewing my result". Often difficult to imagine, how a picture will look in B/W ( gives it often a completely different mood ).
I often noticed, that some pics do look better in color but others better in B/W, especially then, if we want to eleminate a certain attention to something. For example, if a person is wearing a red t-shirt standing in the green forrest, viewers will automatically put their attention on the shirt. If that is wanted, it's fine ... but if the face or something in the forrest might be the actual thing, which I want to be important, B/W might the better option.
There are millions of different possibilities and artistic intentions, of course ... that has been just a simple example, but often, we don't notice certain things while taking a picture. If I want to take a picture intentionally in B/W, I might choose a different technique, angle, zoom, lighting or whatever. So, it might not be a bad idea, shooting in B/W directly. Provides different inspirations then.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 14, 2011 20:25:13 GMT -5
Are you serious ? May I say "what a shame" without being insulting ? I think, the most fans of B/W photography are still using film ( as I can see on Flickr as well ), many are even developing by themselves. Of course, B/W pictures can look beautiful on digital as well, but their look is indeed another story then. And if shooting B/W on a digital camera, I would actually recommend, shooting in B/W mode directly ( and not converting afterwards ). Sometimes, B/W is even a stopgap solution, because there are films available in B/W, which you can't get in color. Very high and low ASA films, for example ... or the white ballance is tough to master in a certain situation ( mixed light, etc. ). B/W film can also be very nice when using direct flash, because film can take more f-stops. The typical "white face in the dark" effect can be mitigated. But I have to appologize for being an oldfashioned guy B/W photography by using a digital camera and converting from color lets my hackles raise ... hahaha ... but please don't take it personal
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Dec 12, 2011 9:55:56 GMT -5
A popular saying in German is speaking of "Argus-eyes", if somebody can see very well. That might come from this camera maker ? Maybe ...
|
|